Re: Patch for review: java.lang.Class - signers issue

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> writes:

Andrew> Tom wanted to call the field hack_signers.  I don't know why.  I would
Andrew> have thought _Jv_signers a better choice.  However, this should be
Andrew> good enough for 3.4.

Usually we use the _Jv_ convention for functions, exported types, and
the like.  We haven't used it for a field before, so it just didn't
occur to me.

"hack_signers" was just a random suggestion, based on the theory that
this is a hack that should go away eventually.  (There's another PR
out there from the kaffe folks -- gcj can't build kaffe due to other
Class or Object conflicts.)

I don't care what the field is called, really.

Tom